I normally rank players based on what I see them finishing with (which I admit is probably the wrong approach to it). And honestly, I see Djokovic being probably the 5th GOAT in my list by the time he's done, behind Federer, Nadal, Sampras and Borg.

I normally rank players based on what I see them finishing with (which I admit is probably the wrong approach to it). And honestly, I see Djokovic being probably the 5th GOAT in my list by the time he's done, behind Federer, Nadal, Sampras and Borg.

Click to expand...

ahead of laver and connors?

IMO he must win at least win 10 majors to pass connors (yeah I know he has 8 but he has a lot more weeks at one and tournament wins-yeah a lot of them were mickey mouse) and 15 to pass laver (who won 2 CYGS and would have easily won 18+ if not for his break from the majors due to turning pro).

IMO he must win at least win 10 majors to pass connors (yeah I know he has 8 but he has a lot more weeks at one and tournament wins-yeah a lot of them were mickey mouse) and 15 to pass laver (who won 2 CYGS and would have easily won 18+ if not for his break from the majors due to turning pro).

I think Djokovic may end with 10 or 11 majors, he will be ranked above Nadal, due to the variety of slams he will achieve. Also weeks at No 1, YEC will add to his resume over Nadal. His final wins at majors have all / will be against the top 3 , which is a huge plus, showing his mental strength in big matches.

He will rank above Borg as well due to the career slam. He will fall short of Fed and Sampras.

He will get the FO this year or next for sure. Given Nadal's injury and Murray on clay, it is not far fetched to think his next 4 or 5 majors, include 1/2 FO and 2 AO and 1 more USO.

Click to expand...

Even if he does win 2 RG titles, that would still put him at having only 3 slams off of hardcourts. Nadal has 4 slams off of clay and people still don't think that enough, so Lance having only 3 off of his best surface certainly does not cut it.

Even if he does win 2 RG titles, that would still put him at having only 3 slams off of hardcourts. Nadal has 4 slams off of clay and people still don't think that enough, so Lance having only 3 off of his best surface certainly does not cut it.

Click to expand...

I think it is more likely that Novak ends up being a multi major winner at all 4 slams - not something Nadal has achieved or for that matter even Fed.

100% certain he will end up with a better resume than them. No mean achievement.

Click to expand...

Hard to say that, Ivan Lendl made 19 slam finals and Conners won an insane number of titles (as did Lendl) and was number one for a very long time, all while maintaining a very high career winning percentage playing into his late 30s. I think he will be on a similar level, but it's difficult to look so far into the future.

I think Djokovic needs to diversify his resume; it is off balance now with 4 AOs , 1 USO, and 1 Wimbledon. Djokovic needs another Wimbledon or USO. He is so good at the AO that he can be called a plexicushion specialist

Djokovic is exactly where he's at: 6 majors, but no overwhelming majors distinction. If Djokovic went on a tear and won all 2013 majors, he's not only the best of his generation the moment that USO point is won (no question about it), but on the same stage as Laver.

He's definitely surpassed Wilander/Edberg/Becker. Becker and Wilander each had one multi-slam year, but Djokovic's multi-slam year was far better than either of theirs. And like Edberg, Djokovic has had two year-end number one finishes, but both of his years (especially 2011) were more dominant than either of Edberg's years at number one. He will quickly overtake Edberg, the only one of the three currently higher than him in weeks at number one. He's one slam short of Wilander, but I can't see him not matching that or surpassing it. He has more Masters than Wilander and Edberg, and the same number as Becker. And I'm sure his overall title count will rise to match the likes of Edber and Becker.

The real question is can he get the career slam and put himself on the same tier as Agassi. Frankly, I think if he won the French this year, I'd put him above Agassi. Agassi was never as dominant or consistent as Djokovic has been. The only thing he really has over him now is the career slam.

Too soon to tell. But with Nadal and Fed near the end, Murray not really in his league, he could rip of 3 of 4 for the next 3 years. To those saying he hasn't won enough off hard, if he wins RG this year he could win a bunch of them. Wimbledon is the one he may not win more than 1.

Nole still has some work to do. He has been so consistent on all surfaces since 2011...either he's a champion or a runner-up is a testament of domination. I know some people(except many old-timers) will argue for him being in the top 10 greatest of all time.

I rank him below Edberg, Becker, Wilander mostly because I am not putting as much stock anymore in this homogenous surface crap. What guys like Lendl and Mac did to even get to finals on their worst surface was impressive. Borg's impressive three time french-wimby double was unheard of. When McEnroe made that French Open final, the world was shocked, McEnroe was playing the highest level of tennis from him anyone had ever seen, had he won that French Open given his game and play style and that surface it would have been impressive. Lendl had to reinvent himself and did so to attempt to complete his box set to win Wimbledon. He sacrificed French Open wins just to get that wimbledon. Today you can win all 4 majors playing the same play style. He's right behind Becker on my list, Wilander, Edberg, Becker then Djokovic.

I think he surpasses Becker, Edberg, and Wilander firmly at this point. None of those guys were ever so consistent for 6 years plus as Djokovic has been, were solidly the best player in the World for over 2, had a year like Djokovics 2011 (Wilander in 1988 had 3 slams, but not the dominance of the regular tour of Djokovic, and barely even got to number 1 over slamless Lendl), were as good across all types of surfaces. Only in slam count are they comparable at this point.

I see him on par with people like Newcombe, Hoad, and Perry right now, but a bit behind Agassi and McEnroe. He will be on par with Agassi and McEnroe when he wins his 7th slams, and on par with Lendl, Connors, when he wins his 8th. Actually if he wins the French to make it a career slam (which he probably will this year) he moves up even faster than that.

Djokovic is exactly where he's at: 6 majors, but no overwhelming majors distinction. If Djokovic went on a tear and won all 2013 majors, he's not only the best of his generation the moment that USO point is won (no question about it), but on the same stage as Laver.

Thundervolley is saying if Nole win all 4 slams this year means he has won a Calendar Grand Slam. According to him, a single GS is the be-all and end-all, it eclipses player's entire career achievement(e.g. Borg/Nadal 11, Sampras 14, etc.). We all know that's BS.

Maybe. But the overemphasis Thundervolley puts on the Calendar Grand Slam overshadows the overall accomplishments, the entirety of a player's career seemingly. Look at the way he is dismissive of Federer, and everyone else who hasn't done "the ultimate feat" in tennis. It's like that's the only thing that defines your greatness: Budge and Laver. SMH.

Thundervolley is saying if Nole win all 4 slams this year means he has won a Calendar Grand Slam. According to him, a single GS is the be-all and end-all, it eclipses player's entire career achievement(e.g. Borg/Nadal 11, Sampras 14, etc.). We all know that's BS.

I agree that he's above Wilander/Becker/Edberg now. But I disagree that he's only a little short of Agassi/Lendl/Connors/McEnroe. I like to look beyond the majors (although that is the weightiest factor).

If Nole wins two more majors this year, including the French Open for the career slam, then I'd place him still slightly behind those guys. Simply because he's still far short in total number of titles compared to all of them, and way wayyyy behind in # of weeks as #1 when compared to all of them except Agassi.

I'll place Novak on par with them if and when he wins his 9th slam, and when he ends this year as #1 (very likely).

According to the following rankings that objectively score only Masters 1000 equivalent events and higher, using the current ATP weighting, Novak is running 10th (below Becker but having surpassed Edberg and Wilander)

Even if he does win 2 RG titles, that would still put him at having only 3 slams off of hardcourts. Nadal has 4 slams off of clay and people still don't think that enough, so Lance having only 3 off of his best surface certainly does not cut it.

Click to expand...

Yeah, Novak is terrible and you hate him. We get it already jeeez :roll:

He's not the GOAT of the Aussie Open, he's around the same group as the Edberg/Wilander/Becker.

Click to expand...

Ha ha sure. The guy who has 4 AO titles of which 3 consecutive (which nobody else has ever done at AO) is in the same category as guys like Edberg and Becker who have won only 2 total or Wilander who has won 3. Nice trolling. Djokovic is in the same group as Federer and Agassi (in open era), meaning the top group but the 3 titles in a row propels him ahead of even those 2.

I could see Djokovic start owning the French Open if Nadal's health keeps failing him over the next few years. Nole's defensive counterpunching style of play is so conducive to clay court play, it's hard not seeing him roll off a few RGs. Fed's reign of being the 2nd best clay courter in the world seems over, so the door's open.

Unless Rafa gets back to business, AO/FO could become a thing for the Djoker. I realize that this is a crazy-sounding thing to say given that he's yet to win a single Roland-Garros

Ha ha sure. The guy who has 4 AO titles of which 3 consecutive (which nobody else has ever done at AO) is in the same category as guys like Edberg and Becker who have won only 2 total or Wilander who has won 3. Nice trolling. Djokovic is in the same group as Federer and Agassi (in open era), meaning the top group but the 3 titles in a row propels him ahead of even those 2.

I think he surpasses Becker, Edberg, and Wilander firmly at this point. None of those guys were ever so consistent for 6 years plus as Djokovic has been, were solidly the best player in the World for over 2, had a year like Djokovics 2011 (Wilander in 1988 had 3 slams, but not the dominance of the regular tour of Djokovic, and barely even got to number 1 over slamless Lendl), were as good across all types of surfaces.Only in slam count are they comparable at this point.

I see him on par with people like Newcombe, Hoad, and Perry right now, but a bit behind Agassi and McEnroe. He will be on par with Agassi and McEnroe when he wins his 7th slams, and on par with Lendl, Connors, when he wins his 8th. Actually if he wins the French to make it a career slam (which he probably will this year) he moves up even faster than that.

Click to expand...

Except that consistency is much more consistent today than in the past due to playing conditions (seeding system, homogenization), and thus not that impressive. He has a windows opportunity to go up the ladder, but right now he is far from Connors and Lendl, and winning 8th slams won't be enough to catch with them.

IMO he must win at least win 10 majors to pass connors (yeah I know he has 8 but he has a lot more weeks at one and tournament wins-yeah a lot of them were mickey mouse) and 15 to pass laver (who won 2 CYGS and would have easily won 18+ if not for his break from the majors due to turning pro).

Click to expand...

Yeah. I'm pretty sure Djokovic will get to 10 Grand Slams. And I really think that if you were to put Prime Djokovic and Prime Laver on a Tennis court, Djokovic would murder him, figuratively speaking.

Yeah. I'm pretty sure Djokovic will get to 10 Grand Slams. And I really think that if you were to put Prime Djokovic and Prime Laver on a Tennis court, Djokovic would murder him, figuratively speaking.

Click to expand...

Djokovic cried because he had to play on a slippery blue clay. How would he react if he had to run and slide with some 50's shoes? Not so well.